MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605570255 · doi:10.1002/app.45124

Replacing 100% of phenol in phenolic adhesive formulations with lignin

2017· article· en· W2605570255 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsAdhesiveLigninPhenolThermogravimetric analysisDifferential scanning calorimetryPhenol formaldehyde resinFourier transform infrared spectroscopyMaterials scienceFormaldehydePulp (tooth)Nuclear chemistryHydrolysisPhenolsChemistryComposite materialChemical engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Lignin, produced as a byproduct of pulp and paper and bioethanol industries, is a polyphenolic compound that has excellent potential to be used as phenol replacement in phenolic adhesive formulation. In this study, the phenol portion of phenol formaldehyde (PF) resin has been replaced by an agricultural‐based lignin, which was produced as a byproduct of a cellulosic bioethanol process through dilute‐acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis from corn stover. The PF resol resin was formulated using isolated lignin under alkaline condition. Chemical, physical, and thermal properties of the isolated lignin, PF resin and adhesive were measured using advanced analytical techniques such as Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), size exclusion chromatography (SEC), phosphorous nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy ( 31 P NMR), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The developed 100% lignin‐based adhesive and a commercially formulated phenol resorcinol formaldehyde (PRF, as reference) were used to prepare single‐lap‐joint samples for mechanical testing. The plywood samples were pressed under exactly the same conditions (time, temperature, and pressure) as what recommended for the commercial PRF formulation. According to two‐way ANOVA results, statistically there was no significant difference between the shear strengths of plywood samples made with 100% lignin‐based adhesive and those made with the commercial PRF resin. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017 , 134 , 45124.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it